One of the most significant contributions to industrial relations theory over the last forty years has been Alan Fox’s elaboration of ‘radical pluralism’ as an analytical frame of reference. Though still highly influential, it has recently been criticized by Peter Ackers for allegedly confusing sociological and historical methodological procedures, prioritizing conflict over co-operation at the workplace, and lacking connection with policy-makers. This article, through close reference to Durkheim, demonstrates how and where radical pluralism differs from Marxist analysis, and why the distinction is so important in answering these criticisms. It concludes that radical pluralism, with its nuanced understanding of the complexities of social inequalities, has potentially a great deal to offer both analysts of contemporary industrial relations and policy-makers.
{"title":"‘A Clear and Honest Understanding’: Alan Fox and the Origins and Implications of Radical Pluralism","authors":"Michael Gold","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.6","url":null,"abstract":"One of the most significant contributions to industrial relations theory over the last forty years has been Alan Fox’s elaboration of ‘radical pluralism’ as an analytical frame of reference. Though still highly influential, it has recently been criticized by Peter Ackers for allegedly confusing sociological and historical methodological procedures, prioritizing conflict over co-operation at the workplace, and lacking connection with policy-makers. This article, through close reference to Durkheim, demonstrates how and where radical pluralism differs from Marxist analysis, and why the distinction is so important in answering these criticisms. It concludes that radical pluralism, with its nuanced understanding of the complexities of social inequalities, has potentially a great deal to offer both analysts of contemporary industrial relations and policy-makers.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48321816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Across a thirteen-week period from January to April 1980, a national steelworkers’ strike took place in Britain. Ostensibly a pay dispute between the steel unions and the nationalized British Steel Corporation (BSC), the strike brought into focus some of the deeper problems the industry faced. As articulated by successive governments, the media, BSC, and even elements within the leadership of the steel unions themselves, these problems were almost wholly a result of poor productivity and over-staffing in the industry. However, during the strike the main steelworkers’ union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, produced a journal, the Steelworkers’ Banner, which challenged this consensus and provided a rationale for the strike. Basing its arguments on original research, the Banner produced evidence of BSC’s mismanagement and produced an alternative strategy for the industry. This did not prevail but is significant as a rare example of a trade-union challenge to the managerial prerogative in relation to company strategy.
从1980年1月到4月的13周时间里，英国发生了一场全国性的钢铁工人罢工。表面上看，这次罢工是钢铁工会和国有化的英国钢铁公司(BSC)之间的薪酬纠纷，但它使钢铁业面临的一些更深层次的问题得到了关注。正如历届政府、媒体、BSC甚至钢铁工会领导层内部人士所阐述的那样，这些问题几乎完全是由于该行业生产率低下和人员过多造成的。然而，在罢工期间，主要的钢铁工人工会钢铁贸易联合会(Iron and Steel Trades Confederation)出版了一份名为《钢铁工人旗帜》(steelworkers’Banner)的杂志，挑战了这一共识，并为罢工提供了理由。基于其原始研究的论点，班纳提出了平衡计分卡管理不善的证据，并为该行业提出了另一种战略。这并没有占上风，但作为工会挑战与公司战略有关的管理特权的罕见例子具有重要意义。
{"title":"‘Going for the Jugular’: The Steelworkers’ Banner and the 1980 National Steelworkers’ Strike in Britain","authors":"Charlie McGuire","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.5","url":null,"abstract":"Across a thirteen-week period from January to April 1980, a national steelworkers’ strike took place in Britain. Ostensibly a pay dispute between the steel unions and the nationalized British Steel Corporation (BSC), the strike brought into focus some of the deeper problems the industry faced. As articulated by successive governments, the media, BSC, and even elements within the leadership of the steel unions themselves, these problems were almost wholly a result of poor productivity and over-staffing in the industry. However, during the strike the main steelworkers’ union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, produced a journal, the Steelworkers’ Banner, which challenged this consensus and provided a rationale for the strike. Basing its arguments on original research, the Banner produced evidence of BSC’s mismanagement and produced an alternative strategy for the industry. This did not prevail but is significant as a rare example of a trade-union challenge to the managerial prerogative in relation to company strategy.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47017302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eric Hobsbawm and other labour historians identified many limitations in the writing of trade-union histories. One was the concentration on single unions, when most operated in a multi-union environment. Others included a tendency to write a chronicle, not a history, and reluctance to criticize recent or current union leaders (particularly in a commissioned history). Steve Williams and Bob Fryer admit that their (1928–93) account of the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE) relies on union archives and is a ‘somewhat “top-down” history’. They highlight the role of Bryn Roberts (1934–62) as general secretary in building the union, creating a ‘popular bossdom’ before a ‘sponsored democratization’ took place in the 1970s. The authors’ view of NUPE as a ‘family’ and their narrative of progressive national leadership from 1968 sit uneasily with the serious democratic deficit in the under-representation of women in this majority-female union. Their mainly chronological focus does not develop the critical role of (usually male) branch secretaries’ vested interests or the significance of generally appointing full-time officers externally in this overwhelmingly manual union.
{"title":"Writing Trade-Union History: The Case of the National Union of Public Employees","authors":"Dave Lyddon","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.9","url":null,"abstract":"Eric Hobsbawm and other labour historians identified many limitations in the writing of trade-union histories. One was the concentration on single unions, when most operated in a multi-union environment. Others included a tendency to write a chronicle, not a history, and reluctance to criticize recent or current union leaders (particularly in a commissioned history). \u0000 \u0000Steve Williams and Bob Fryer admit that their (1928–93) account of the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE) relies on union archives and is a ‘somewhat “top-down” history’. They highlight the role of Bryn Roberts (1934–62) as general secretary in building the union, creating a ‘popular bossdom’ before a ‘sponsored democratization’ took place in the 1970s. The authors’ view of NUPE as a ‘family’ and their narrative of progressive national leadership from 1968 sit uneasily with the serious democratic deficit in the under-representation of women in this majority-female union. Their mainly chronological focus does not develop the critical role of (usually male) branch secretaries’ vested interests or the significance of generally appointing full-time officers externally in this overwhelmingly manual union.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3828/HSIR.2017.38.9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48814196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, passed by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative government after the General Strike, has been regarded as ‘more of an insult than an injury’. This article challenges such an interpretation, suggesting that the Act was draconian in conception and (to an extent) in execution. It represented a break with the industrial relations legal settlement which had been painstakingly arrived at by the 1920s. The pressures to unravel this settlement came much more from within the Conservative Party than as a result of the Strike, and saw Conservative moderates marginalized. For Labour and the trade unions, the Act demonstrated ‘deliberate class bias’ and they worked tirelessly for its repeal, eventually achieved by the Attlee government in 1946. The effects of the Act were more limited than expected but this was more the product of circumstances than intentions. The 1927 Act fits comfortably within an enduring pattern of Conservative distrust of the unions, the manifestations of w...
{"title":"The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 Reconsidered","authors":"A. Williamson","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2","url":null,"abstract":"The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, passed by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative government after the General Strike, has been regarded as ‘more of an insult than an injury’. This article challenges such an interpretation, suggesting that the Act was draconian in conception and (to an extent) in execution. It represented a break with the industrial relations legal settlement which had been painstakingly arrived at by the 1920s. The pressures to unravel this settlement came much more from within the Conservative Party than as a result of the Strike, and saw Conservative moderates marginalized. For Labour and the trade unions, the Act demonstrated ‘deliberate class bias’ and they worked tirelessly for its repeal, eventually achieved by the Attlee government in 1946. The effects of the Act were more limited than expected but this was more the product of circumstances than intentions. The 1927 Act fits comfortably within an enduring pattern of Conservative distrust of the unions, the manifestations of w...","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70517867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines two important workplace occupations, at Briant Colour Printing (BCP) in London and at Imperial Typewriters in Hull. These were staged during the wave of industrial militancy in the first half of the 1970s by workers to challenge the closure of their workplaces and were part of a wider movement of occupations initiated by the work-in at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (1971–72). Rather than linking the fate of each of these two actions immediately to the strategy adopted by the workers in occupation, the analysis, based on first-hand accounts of the occupiers, contrasts the very different context of the BCP occupation in 1972 to that of Imperial Typewriters in 1975. Neither the struggle to find an alternative owner, that ultimately both sought, nor the attempt at establishing a workers’ co-operative, adopted initially by Imperial workers, proved successful. Yet, to the participants, both occupations made sense as acts of resistance to the commodified nature of labour under capitalism.
{"title":"The Success and Failings of UK Work-Ins and Sit-Ins in the 1970s: Briant Colour Printing and Imperial Typewriters","authors":"A. Tuckman, H. Knudsen","doi":"10.3828/hsir.2016.37.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2016.37.4","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines two important workplace occupations, at Briant Colour Printing (BCP) in London and at Imperial Typewriters in Hull. These were staged during the wave of industrial militancy in the first half of the 1970s by workers to challenge the closure of their workplaces and were part of a wider movement of occupations initiated by the work-in at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (1971–72). Rather than linking the fate of each of these two actions immediately to the strategy adopted by the workers in occupation, the analysis, based on first-hand accounts of the occupiers, contrasts the very different context of the BCP occupation in 1972 to that of Imperial Typewriters in 1975. Neither the struggle to find an alternative owner, that ultimately both sought, nor the attempt at establishing a workers’ co-operative, adopted initially by Imperial workers, proved successful. Yet, to the participants, both occupations made sense as acts of resistance to the commodified nature of labour under capitalism.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70518187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the first two decades after the creation of the Federation of Australia in 1901 Justice Henry Bournes Higgins and his fellow Arbitration Court and Board of Trade judges used the contestation over dress in female living-wage cases to reinforce male hegemony via discrimination towards female workers and to set prescriptive sumptuary standards of dress for them. This article illustrates how these judicial officers embraced the same type of objectives embodied in earlier sumptuary codes when they adopted a new legal and social role as arbiters of taste and normative ‘appropriateness’ in female dress. As men of authority and power, they positioned themselves to decide gendered questions such as what represented a reasonable amount for female factory workers to spend on their clothes.
{"title":"Testing the fabric: prescribing female dress in Australian early living-wage cases","authors":"Caroline Dick","doi":"10.3828/hsir.2016.37.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2016.37.1","url":null,"abstract":"In the first two decades after the creation of the Federation of Australia in 1901 Justice Henry Bournes Higgins and his fellow Arbitration Court and Board of Trade judges used the contestation over dress in female living-wage cases to reinforce male hegemony via discrimination towards female workers and to set prescriptive sumptuary standards of dress for them. This article illustrates how these judicial officers embraced the same type of objectives embodied in earlier sumptuary codes when they adopted a new legal and social role as arbiters of taste and normative ‘appropriateness’ in female dress. As men of authority and power, they positioned themselves to decide gendered questions such as what represented a reasonable amount for female factory workers to spend on their clothes.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70517758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
When a Sikh bus driver working for Wolverhampton Borough Council in 1967 wore a turban and beard to work for the first time he was sent home for breaching the existing dress code. The Sikh municipal workers pursued their demands through pressure-group politics after being marginalized by their union. It ended with a change in the employer and the employment regulations, and subsequent changes to the law. This case illustrates how a religious and cultural issue, originating from outside the workplace, led to challenges to the making and enforcement of workplace rules. It indicates the nature of struggle with, in this case, the relevant trade union failing to support its Sikh members, the local Labour council failing to confront its own racial prejudices, and how immigration, then as now, divides and weakens communities across the class spectrum. The limitations of treating industrial relations as mainly based on job regulation within the organization, to the neglect of external, often political, factors, are discussed, and the subsequent arguments over legal exceptionalism for Sikhs are rehearsed.
{"title":"Wearing the Turban: The 1967-1969 Sikh bus drivers dispute in Wolverhampton","authors":"R. Seifert, A. Hambler","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.3","url":null,"abstract":"When a Sikh bus driver working for Wolverhampton Borough Council in 1967 wore a turban and beard to work for the first time he was sent home for breaching the existing dress code. The Sikh municipal workers pursued their demands through pressure-group politics after being marginalized by their union. It ended with a change in the employer and the employment regulations, and subsequent changes to the law. This case illustrates how a religious and cultural issue, originating from outside the workplace, led to challenges to the making and enforcement of workplace rules. It indicates the nature of struggle with, in this case, the relevant trade union failing to support its Sikh members, the local Labour council failing to confront its own racial prejudices, and how immigration, then as now, divides and weakens communities across the class spectrum. The limitations of treating industrial relations as mainly based on job regulation within the organization, to the neglect of external, often political, factors, are discussed, and the subsequent arguments over legal exceptionalism for Sikhs are rehearsed.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70518006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU), 300,000 strong, opened its doors for business on 1 January 1922, confronted by a hostile environment. The dramatic scale and suddenness of the economic slump of 1920–22 was without precedent in British economic history. Unemployment among insured workers rose in just seven months from 2.6% in June 1920 to 17.1% in January 1922. Money wages in the whole transport industry fell by 18% between 1920 and 1923. A series of industrial defeats were inflicted on trade unions. The political climate was inimical to trade unions too. The TGWU’s total union membership fell by 35% between 1920 and 1923. Its subsequent growth owed much to the union’s flexible structure, designed to recognize the special interests of its participants, both in the designation of areas and in the autonomy granted to sections and groups. This facilitated more amalgamations, and provided a basis for growth in the new manufacturing industries.
{"title":"A difficult childhood: The formative years of the Transport and General Workers’ Union","authors":"T. Topham","doi":"10.3828/hsir.2016.37.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2016.37.12","url":null,"abstract":"The Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU), 300,000 strong, opened its doors for business on 1 January 1922, confronted by a hostile environment. The dramatic scale and suddenness of the economic slump of 1920–22 was without precedent in British economic history. Unemployment among insured workers rose in just seven months from 2.6% in June 1920 to 17.1% in January 1922. Money wages in the whole transport industry fell by 18% between 1920 and 1923. A series of industrial defeats were inflicted on trade unions. The political climate was inimical to trade unions too. The TGWU’s total union membership fell by 35% between 1920 and 1923. Its subsequent growth owed much to the union’s flexible structure, designed to recognize the special interests of its participants, both in the designation of areas and in the autonomy granted to sections and groups. This facilitated more amalgamations, and provided a basis for growth in the new manufacturing industries.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3828/hsir.2016.37.12","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70517819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the significance of the three industrial relations and trade union laws passed by the Thatcher Governments’ between 1979 and 1984, and the discourse which was invoked to define the ‘problem, and thereby legitimise the legislation enacted. In so doing, it makes use of government papers only recently released by the National Archives, which reveal the thinking and the debates which occurred between ministers over the trade union ‘problem. The article notes that while James Prior favoured a minimalist approach, this was unacceptable to Thatcher and her closest colleagues, including Sir John Hoskyns. Once Prior had been replaced by Norman Tebbit, an incremental approach was maintained, but the content of the laws had profound implications for the unions and their ability to engage in industrial action. In particular, the 1982 Employment Act significantly narrowed the definition of a trade dispute, and exposed trade-union funds to tort action (damages) for industrial action which was deemed to exceed this new definition. In so doing, reference was routinely made to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, which was deemed to have placed the unions above the law, by granting them immunity from civil action for damages incurred during an industrial dispute. Hence the discourse of union ‘privileges’, and the need to place them back under the rule of law, just like any other individual or corporate body.
{"title":"Weakening the trade unions, one step at a time: the Thatcher governments' strategy for the reform of trade union law, 1979-1984.","authors":"P. Dorey","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the significance of the three industrial relations and trade union laws passed by the Thatcher Governments’ between 1979 and 1984, and the discourse which was invoked to define the ‘problem, and thereby legitimise the legislation enacted. In so doing, it makes use of government papers only recently released by the National Archives, which reveal the thinking and the debates which occurred between ministers over the trade union ‘problem. The article notes that while James Prior favoured a minimalist approach, this was unacceptable to Thatcher and her closest colleagues, including Sir John Hoskyns. Once Prior had been replaced by Norman Tebbit, an incremental approach was maintained, but the content of the laws had profound implications for the unions and their ability to engage in industrial action. In particular, the 1982 Employment Act significantly narrowed the definition of a trade dispute, and exposed trade-union funds to tort action (damages) for industrial action which was deemed to exceed this new definition. In so doing, reference was routinely made to the 1906 Trade Disputes Act, which was deemed to have placed the unions above the law, by granting them immunity from civil action for damages incurred during an industrial dispute. Hence the discourse of union ‘privileges’, and the need to place them back under the rule of law, just like any other individual or corporate body.","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.6","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70518293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ‘Oxford School of Industrial Relations’, centred at Nuffield College, was one major instance of academics entering the ‘corridors of power’ and attempting to resolve national problems of unofficial strikes, inflation, and restrictive practices, most notably via the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (Donovan), 1965–68. For historians today, there are two reasons why this mattered. First, because, in effect, they had created a new social-science field of industrial relations. Oxford was not the only industrial relations centre, but during the 1950s and 1960s it was the strongest and most politically influential. Second, and more important at the time, the Oxford School addressed a central policy moment in the development of social-democratic ‘bargained corporatism’ and the role that trade unions might play in this. In many respects, the Oxford School were representative figures of the post-war progressive generation, dedicated to ‘reconstruction’. It had had a powerful impact ...
{"title":"The Donovan Commission: Were We in the Trade Unions Too Short-Sighted?","authors":"J. Edmonds","doi":"10.3828/hsir.2016.37.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3828/hsir.2016.37.10","url":null,"abstract":"The ‘Oxford School of Industrial Relations’, centred at Nuffield College, was one major instance of academics entering the ‘corridors of power’ and attempting to resolve national problems of unofficial strikes, inflation, and restrictive practices, most notably via the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations (Donovan), 1965–68. For historians today, there are two reasons why this mattered. First, because, in effect, they had created a new social-science field of industrial relations. Oxford was not the only industrial relations centre, but during the 1950s and 1960s it was the strongest and most politically influential. Second, and more important at the time, the Oxford School addressed a central policy moment in the development of social-democratic ‘bargained corporatism’ and the role that trade unions might play in this. In many respects, the Oxford School were representative figures of the post-war progressive generation, dedicated to ‘reconstruction’. It had had a powerful impact ...","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70517889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：